Dimming Prospects for Farm Reform

Published: December 18, 2001

Next September the 1996 farm bill, the Freedom to Farm Act, expires. It was a failure in almost every respect. It promised to reform a system of federal farm subsidies that had grown larger, more complicated and less equitable with every passing farm bill. But the good intentions behind that bill were trumped every year by emergency appropriations that essentially continued the old way of doing business and in many cases made that old way actually worse. As it stands, the structure of farm subsidies in this country ensures that Washington will continue giving billions of dollars to large, wealthy farming corporations whether or not that is good for consumers, the soil, the water or the health of rural communities.

Both the House and Senate want to have the next farm bill done before the 2002 Christmas recess. In October the House, by a slim margin, passed its version -- a boon to big commodity farmers -- after narrowly defeating a bill that offered a real prospect of meaningful change in the way agriculture is supported. Now the Senate is in the last stages of passing its version. The bill most likely to succeed, sponsored by Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, contains significant new money for important conservation programs and nutrition. But unless amendments aimed at limiting federal payments win approval on the Senate floor, the subsidy machine that has rewarded America's biggest farmers and helped put smaller ones out of business will basically keep going without interruption.

The Senate is unlikely to approve sharp limitations on the old subsidies. But that is not out of the question. One reason is a Web site compiled by the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization in Washington, showing in graphic detail how the traditional subsidy programs reward mainly the big farmers in a handful of states, with payments running into the millions of dollars. Average citizens who check the site might wonder why fewer than 10 percent of the farmers in California, New Jersey and Florida get help from federal subsidies, while 70 percent or more of the farmers in Iowa and North and South Dakota are taken care of. This has greatly embarrassed farm-state senators, who are suddenly showing concern for the little guy. Senator Harkin is attempting to protect the corporate farming subsidies by adding provisions that help the nation as a whole. But there is still a long way to go before the program is either fair or economically sensible.

Legislators who ordinarily view the farm bill merely as a test of party loyalty have begun to examine seriously the effects of farm subsidies. The conservation incentives in the Harkin bill reflect some of these new concerns. They would be available to farmers everywhere and not just the big players. Moreover, there is in both houses the beginning of a progressive coalition that may in time challenge the leadership of the entrenched warriors of big agriculture and big subsidies.

Whether the forces of enlightenment can prevail on the Senate floor this week, and turn the Harkin bill into something truly transforming, remains to be seen. But even if they fail, they will have produced a better bill than the retrograde measure passed by the House. Their obligation will be to make sure that their version prevails in the conference committee, and prepare to continue the fight for real reform in the future.